Understanding models of care in cardiac rehabilitation programs to maximize outcomes in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, causing a global health epidemic that contributes to more than 17 million deaths each year. While the understanding of CVD continues to increase around the world, its prevalence has continued to rise significantly. Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) is multifaceted secondary prevention intervention that includes physical, psychological and social components in order to attempt to educate clients on management of disease risk factors, exercise training, nutrition, cardio protective drug therapy as well as providing psychological counseling services. CR produces many benefits across a variety of CVD populations, such as reducing mortality amongst clients. However, CR is not utilized to its full potential and the extent of its capabilities as a disease management strategy. This is an issue especially in Canada and the United States, where referral and participation rates differ significantly between the two countries, despite their close proximity to each other. This review acts as a first step towards better understanding the differences between the two countries in order to increase CR referrals and participation, therefore improving the ability to decrease overall CVD mortality and the global economic burden.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".